throbber
CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`Patti Jones, Karin Murry, Kathy Kerssen,
`Carrie Martinson, Jacki Stene, and
`Deb Koziolek,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` vs
`
`The Mayo Clinic; a Minnesota non-profit
`corporation, and the Mayo Foundation, a
`Minnesota non-profit corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Court File No. 22-cv-1478 JRT/BRT
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Patti Jones (“Plaintiff Jones”), Karin Murry (“Plaintiff Murry”), Kathy
`
`Kerssen (“Plaintiff Kerssen”), Carrie Martinson (“Plaintiff Martinson”), Jacki Stene
`
`(“Plaintiff Stene”), and Deb Koziolek (“Plaintiff Koziolek”) (all Plaintiffs collectively
`
`“Plaintiffs”) make the following allegations for their Complaint against Defendant The
`
`Mayo Clinic (“Defendant Mayo”) and Defendant the Mayo Foundation (“Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation”).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In October, 2021, Defendant Mayo mandated that all its employees,
`
`including employees of its related corporation Defendant Mayo Foundation, receive the
`
`Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of continuing their employment (“Vaccine
`
`Mandate”). Many of Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s employees,
`
`including Plaintiffs, objected to receiving these vaccinations because of their sincerely-
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`held religious beliefs. Plaintiffs filed requests for a religious exemption with Defendant
`
`Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation to be exempt from taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccination. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation denied the requested
`
`religious exemptions. In addition, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation
`
`failed to undertake an individual interactive process with any of the Plaintiffs as required
`
`for evaluating religious exemption requests. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation terminated Plaintiffs solely based on Plaintiffs refusal to take the Covid-19
`
`vaccine. However, only a couple of months after terminating Plaintiffs, Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation reversed part of their Vaccine Mandate regarding
`
`testing, demonstrating that the terminations of Plaintiffs were either unnecessary or a
`
`pretext.
`
`2.
`
`Based on Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s
`
`implementation of the Vaccine Mandate and their refusal to grant Plaintiffs their requests
`
`for religious exemptions, Plaintiffs bring claims under Title VII for religious
`
`discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) based on Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s Vaccine Mandate, related state claims under
`
`the Minnesota Human Rights Act for religious discrimination and disability
`
`discrimination and breach of contract.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA, including the filing of a Charge with the EEOC,
`
`and the receipt of a right-to-sue letter from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`(“EEOC”) following closure of the EEOC file, all in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-
`
`5(f)(1).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it raises
`
`claims pursuant to federal statute, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This Court further has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo as it is a non-
`
`profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo Foundation as it
`
`is a non-profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Mayo is subject to the provisions of Title VII and the ADA
`
`because Defendant Mayo employs more than fifteen employees in each of twenty or
`
`more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42 U.S.C. §2000e
`
`(b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation is subject to the provisions of Title VII and
`
`the ADA because Defendant Mayo Foundation employs more than fifteen employees in
`
`each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42
`
`U.S.C. §2000e (b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
`
`because the actions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Minnesota, and
`
`Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation conduct business in the State of
`
`Minnesota.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Patti Jones is a Wisconsin resident who worked for Defendant
`
`Mayo most recently in the post hospital partnership program. She worked 100%
`
`remotely for most of the last two years of her employment.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Karin Murry is a Rochester, Minnesota resident who is 55 years
`
`old and worked for the Defendant Mayo Foundation as a respiratory therapist for over 30
`
`years. On information and belief, Plaintiff Murry is one of the more highly paid
`
`employees at her position.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Kathy Kerssen is a Rochester, Minnesota resident who most
`
`recently worked as a certified optician for Defendant Mayo for nearly 20 years. Plaintiff
`
`Kerssen is 53 years old and is one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Carrie Martinson is a Gilbert, Arizona resident who worked for
`
`Defendant Mayo as a nurse practitioner for nearly 20 years when she resided in
`
`Minnesota. She made $62.75 per hour, which made her one of the more highly paid
`
`employees for her position.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Jacki Stene is an Albert Lea, Minnesota resident who is 62 years
`
`old and worked for Defendant Mayo as an senior IT access management specialist.
`
`Plaintiff Stene worked for Defendant Mayo for approximately 35 years and on
`
`information and belief was one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Deb Koziolek is a Minnesota resident who is 60 years old and
`
`worked for Defendant Mayo as an LPN for 18 years. On information and belief, Plaintiff
`
`Koziolek was one of the more highly paid employees at her position.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`16. Defendant Mayo is a Minnesota non-profit corporation headquartered in
`
`Minnesota which operates medical facilities in Minnesota.
`
`17. Defendant Mayo Foundation is a Minnesota non-profit corporation
`
`headquartered in Minnesota which operates medical facilities in Minnesota.
`
`FACTS
`
`18. During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Plaintiffs were asked to work their
`
`own and frequently additional shifts in order to cover the increase in treatment and care
`
`for patients during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. At that time, Plaintiffs, while
`
`unvaccinated, continued to provide patient care or continue working during the pandemic
`
`while employed by Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation.
`
`19. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation recognized the
`
`important work that all of its employees were doing—the unvaccinated and the
`
`vaccinated—and on September 28, 2021 the President and CEO of Defendant Mayo
`
`(Gianrico Farrugia, M.D.), along with the Chief administrative Officer (Jeff Bolton)
`
`wrote to Defendant Mayo’s employees:
`
`“On behalf of the leaders of Mayo Clinic’s sites and shields, thank you for
`the compassionate care you provide to our patients, your excellent service
`to Mayo Clinic, and the supportive and collaborative environment you
`create for all of our colleagues. We truly appreciate you and your efforts
`to live our values every day.”
`
`20. However, just two weeks later, Defendant Mayo implemented its Vaccine
`
`Mandate for Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation. The Vaccine Mandate
`
`stated that “all Mayo Clinic staff members” must get vaccinated with one of the Covid-19
`
`vaccines or else the employees would be considered “noncompliant,” later “placed on
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`unpaid leave,” and eventually “terminated.” The Vaccine Mandate applied to “all staff,
`
`including remote workers,” of which Defendant Mayo had many. Recognition of the
`
`important work performed by the unvaccinated employees disappeared only two weeks
`
`after being celebrated.
`
`21.
`
`The Vaccine Mandate was announced on October 13, 2021. Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s policy required all staff to become vaccinated
`
`against Covid-19, and that if they were not already vaccinated or only partially
`
`vaccinated, they would have to become vaccinated or be approved for a medical or
`
`religious exemption by December 3, 2021, or be terminated.
`
`22. On October 25, 2021, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation
`
`sent a communication outlining the steps to comply with the Covid-19 vaccination
`
`policy. Beginning on December 3, 2021, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation issued Final Written Warnings to noncompliant staff with instructions on
`
`complying by January 3, 2022, or be terminated.
`
`23. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation announced that there
`
`were both medical and religious exemptions from the Vaccine Mandate, and did allow for
`
`employees to apply for “medical and religious exemptions” to the Vaccine Mandate, and
`
`even provided “forms” for such applications.
`
`24. However, what Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation gave
`
`with one hand, they took away with the other by proclaiming that “it is anticipated that a
`
`small number of staff will have a qualifying religious exemption.” (emphasis added)
`
`Defendants further wrote: “applications for a religious exemption will be denied if the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`panel determines the applicant does not demonstrate a sincerely held religious belief,
`
`(emphasis added). Further, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation declared:
`
`“[o]nly a small number of staff are expected to qualify for a religious exemption.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`25. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation thus put themselves in
`
`the position of deciding the sincerity of the religious belief of the Plaintiffs and, whether
`
`a belief was “religious” or not.
`
`26. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation also expressed
`
`limitations to the “medical exemption” to the Vaccine Mandate by stating: “The only
`
`absolute medical contraindications to vaccination for COVID-19 are severe or
`
`immediate reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine, known allergy to a vaccine component,
`
`or a preexisting and clinically diagnosed fear of needles.” Other medical conditions
`
`were preemptively discounted or disregarded.
`
`27.
`
`The pre-determined limitations on their religious and medical exemption
`
`policies were supposed to be kept in the dark, as Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation wrote to the high-ranking personnel who were to implement the policies:
`
`“This message is intended for regional supervisors, managers and other leaders, so
`
`please do not share broadly.” (emphasis added).
`
`28. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Jones requested
`
`a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Jones requested
`
`Defendant Mayo provide her with further information regarding the religious exemption
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`denial and was told: “We are not able to provide individual feedback regarding your
`
`denial reasons.” Plaintiff Jones requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial
`
`denial. Defendant Mayo denied the request for reconsideration.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Jones is a Christian and believes her body is a Temple of the Holy
`
`Spirit and that she must not defile her body with unwanted intrusions. Taking the vaccine
`
`would defile her body that God has given her.
`
`30.
`
` For almost all of her last two years of employment with Defendant Mayo,
`
`Plaintiff Jones worked 100% remotely and therefore did not have contact with patients or
`
`other employees and therefore posed no danger to Defendant Mayo’s employees or
`
`patients.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Jones received positive job performance reviews.
`
`32. Because of her job with Defendant Mayo, Plaintiff Jones was aware of a
`
`number of patients suffering illnesses shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Murry requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation denied. Plaintiff Murry requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo Foundation denied the request for
`
`reconsideration.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff Murry also sought information as to the basis for the rejection of
`
`her religious exemption but Defendant Mayo Foundation provided no reasoning or
`
`explanation.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Murry is a Christian and believes that her body is a Temple and
`
`she has the right, through prayer, to determine what to put into her body. She has
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`determined she cannot, consistent with her conscience and religious beliefs, take the
`
`vaccine.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Murry was at the high end of the pay scale for her job and had
`
`worked for Defendant Mayo for over 30 years.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has received positive job performance reviews including
`
`that “Karin is an amazing team member. She is a joy to work with and always offers help
`
`to coworkers.”
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has observed that the Vaccine Mandate and religious
`
`exemption process were used to prematurely end the employment of older workers and
`
`higher paid workers.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff Murry has observed numerous healthy individuals suffering
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the vaccine.
`
`40. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Kerssen
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Kerssen
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration. Plaintiff Kerssen received many positive employment
`
`reviews for her job performance.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen has had Covid-19 and recovered which means she has
`
`natural immunity.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen has observed numerous healthy individuals suffering
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the vaccine.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen is a Christian, and has determined that she cannot,
`
`consistent with her religion and conscience, take the COVID-19 vaccine. She is a
`
`believer in Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, believes the tenants of the Holy Scripture that
`
`whatever she does in life will be called into account, including what she does to her body,
`
`made in the image of God, and to do otherwise is a sin against God. She also objects to
`
`taking the Covid-19 vaccine on the basis that it was produced with, or tested with cells
`
`from aborted human babies. This violates her religious belief in the Commandment that
`
`Thou Shall Not Kill.
`
`44. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Martinson
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Martinson
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson is a Christian and has determined she cannot, consistent
`
`with her conscience, take the COVID-19 vaccine. She is a believer in Jesus Christ, Lord
`
`and Savior, believes the tenants of the Holy Scripture that whatever she does in life will
`
`be called into account, including what she does to her body, made in the image of God,
`
`and to do otherwise is a sin against God. She also believes that abortion is murder and a
`
`sin, and since the vaccines were produced with, or tested with, cells from aborted human
`
`babies, it would be sinful to take the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson also requested a medical exemption because she had
`
`COVID-19, recovered, and has antibody immunity confirmed by test in December 2021.
`
`Martinson also has had a number of health issues causing her to miss periods of work.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson also filed a request for a medical exemption with
`
`Defendant Mayo because health providers advised Plaintiff Martinson to delay Covid-19
`
`vaccination due to severe inflammatory disorders. Defendant Mayo also denied Plaintiff
`
`Martinson’s request for a medical exemption.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson has received numerous positive job reviews including
`
`that she “is a great resource for everyone! She is knowledgeable of her job and is always
`
`willing to help out…”
`
`49. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Stene requested
`
`a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Stene requested
`
`reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied the request
`
`for reconsideration.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Stene has been tested for anti-bodies which demonstrated that she
`
`has anti bodies present to provide immunity to Covid-19.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff Stene received numerous positive job performance reviews.
`
`Plaintiff Stene worked 100% remotely with Defendant Mayo after March
`
`2020. As such, she was able to perform her duties and pose no threat whatsoever to
`
`Defendant Mayo’s employees or patients.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`53. Consistent with Defendants Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Koziolek
`
`requested a religious exemption which Defendant Mayo denied. Plaintiff Koziolek
`
`requested reconsideration of Defendant Mayo’s initial denial. Defendant Mayo denied
`
`the request for reconsideration.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek is a Christian and believes that during prayer God
`
`revealed it would be wrong for her to be vaccinated against Covid-19.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek received numerous positive job performance reviews.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek, who is 60 years old, is aware of younger workers whose
`
`religious exemptions were granted. Plaintiff Koziolek was at the higher end of the pay
`
`scale. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mayo denied the religious exemptions of
`
`older, higher compensated workers, and then terminated them.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek is aware of several people who suffered injuries or
`
`illnesses shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine, and is aware of one person who
`
`died shortly after receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`58. After Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation told Plaintiffs that
`
`Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation had denied their requests for religious
`
`exemptions and requests for reconsideration, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation also instructed the Plaintiffs: “Do not distribute, forward, or copy the content
`
`of this notification.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`59. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Jones’ employment on January 3,
`
`2022. Plaintiff Jones filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Jones a Right to Sue letter dated March 3, 2022.
`
`60. Defendant Mayo Foundation terminated Plaintiff Murry’s employment on
`
`January 3, 2022. Plaintiff Murry filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC and the
`
`EEOC issued Plaintiff Murry a Right to Sue letter dated March 3, 2022
`
`61. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Kerssen on January 3, 2022. Plaintiff
`
`Kerssen filed a discrimination charge against Defendant Mayo, and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Kerssen a Right to Sue letter March 7, 2022.
`
`62. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Martinson on January 3, 2022.
`
`Plaintiff Martinson filed a charge for discrimination with the EEOC and the EEOC issued
`
`Plaintiff Martinson a Right to Sue letter dated March 7, 2022.
`
`63. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Stene on January 3, 2022. Plaintiff
`
`Stene filed with the EEOC a charge of discrimination against Defendant Mayo. The
`
`EEOC issued Plaintiff Stene a Right to Sue letter dated March 7, 2022.
`
`64. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Koziolek on January 3, 2022.
`
`Plaintiff Koziolek filed a claim of discrimination with the EEOC and on March 8, 2022
`
`the EEOC issued Plaintiff Koziolek a Right to Sue letter.
`
`65. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation created an ad hoc panel
`
`to review exemption requests for taking the Covid-19 vaccine. As noted above, each of
`
`the Plaintiffs submitted requests for an exemption, but Defendant Mayo or Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation denied nearly every request for religious exemption, with the exception
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`that some were granted, but conditioned upon submission to invasive, supervised weekly
`
`testing.
`
`66. As a result of Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s policy
`
`on restricting religious and medical exemptions, very few people qualified for those
`
`exemptions, resulting in mass terminations for those, including each of the Plaintiffs, who
`
`all refused to be injected with the Covid-19 vaccine and whom Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation terminated as a result.
`
`67.
`
`In issuing the denials for requests for a religious exemption from taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation sent the such
`
`employees, including Plaintiffs, the same boilerplate language:
`
`”Thank you for submitting your request for religious exemption. The
`information you provided was carefully considered. While this may not be
`the news you were hoping to receive, your religious accommodation has
`not been approved. Based on the information provided, your request did
`not meet the criteria for a religious exemption accommodation.”
`
`68. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation conducted no case-by-
`
`case analysis or individualized interactive process to discuss each of the Plaintiff’s
`
`religious exemption requests or possible accommodation of their religious objections. In
`
`response to employee requests for explanation or information regarding Defendant
`
`Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s processes for evaluating religious exemptions
`
`requests from employees seeking a religious exemptions to taking the Covid-19 vaccine,
`
`Defendant Mayo wrote: “HR is not able to share what criteria was used to
`
`review/approve the exemption. A small team of employees reviewed each request and
`
`based on what was provided to them from each individual employee is what was used in
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`the approval/denial decision.” Rather than engage in a legitimate interactive process,
`
`respect the sincerity of its employees’, including Plaintiffs’, religious beliefs, or attempt
`
`any reasonable accommodation, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation sent
`
`its employees more boilerplate language to justify its pre-determined result:
`
`“Generally, denials occur because the requestor has not clearly stated their
`sincerely held belief, demonstrated it is a sincerely and consistently held
`belief, and/or clearly defined the conflict between their religious belief and
`receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.”
`
`69. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation actually specifically
`
`disavowed an individual interactive process by writing: “Specific feedback on individual
`
`requests will not be provided, it is not possible to provide individual feedback.”
`
`70.
`
`Each of the Plaintiffs sought further clarification on Defendant Mayo’s and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation’s criteria for determining whether a religious belief
`
`constituted a “sincerely held religious belief,” and the basis for Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation determining that each of the Plaintiffs did not have a
`
`“sincerely held religious belief.” However, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation refused to respond to these individual requests for clarification and rather
`
`simply sent each of the Plaintiffs the identical generalized language in Defendant Mayo’s
`
`letters.
`
`71.
`
`In their form denial letters, Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation announced that they would accept appeals of their uniform denial decisions.
`
`“If you would like to submit additional clarifying information, you may submit a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`reconsideration request here.” Each of the Plaintiffs took advantage of that process and
`
`submitted additional information to Defendant Mayo or Defendant Mayo Foundation.
`
`72.
`
`Following each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for reconsideration of their
`
`requests for a religious exemption to taking the Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation again issued identical denial letters to each of the Plaintiffs
`
`and nearly every employee who appealed a denial of a request for a religious exemption
`
`to taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Defendants’ transmittal email messages stated:
`
`“Unfortunately, the additional information you provided did not change the outcome as it
`
`did not meet the criteria for a religious accommodation.” Again, Defendant Mayo and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation engaged in no interactive process to evaluate the requests
`
`for religious exemptions.
`
`73. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation did not provide
`
`information to its employees, including each of the Plaintiffs, about how Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation determined whether the religious beliefs of those
`
`employees who submitted requests for a religious exemption to taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccine were sincerely held or whether those religious beliefs would be accommodated.
`
`74. Both Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo Foundation’s original denial
`
`of each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for a religious exemption and Defendant Mayo’s and
`
`Defendant Mayo Foundation’s denial of each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for
`
`reconsideration of the denial of their requests for a religious exemption to taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine contained this warning at the bottom: “Do not disseminate, distribute,
`
`forward, or copy the content of this notification.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`75. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation further instructed its
`
`employees to “endorse the vaccine or say nothing.”
`
`76.
`
`Each of the Plaintiffs submitted good-faith statements of their sincerely-
`
`held religious beliefs, with explanations of how their faith constrained them from
`
`accepting the Covid-19 vaccination. Defendant Mayo’s and Defendant Mayo
`
`Foundation’s ad hoc panel nevertheless denied each of the Plaintiffs’ requests for a
`
`religious exemption and Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation made no
`
`effort to accommodate their requests for a religious exemption. Further, Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation never considered allowing Plaintiffs to be
`
`accommodated by simply doing their job in the way they had been doing it for over one
`
`and one-half years prior to the Vaccine Mandate.
`
`77. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation, in issuing the Vaccine
`
`Mandate, instructed that all of their employees must be “fully vaccinated,” despite the
`
`fact that the phrase “fully vaccinated” has changed from one shot, to two shots, then three
`
`shots, then four shots, and even a discussion of a fifth shot or annual shots.
`
`78. Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation mandated its employees,
`
`including Plaintiffs, take the Covid-19 vaccine despite accumulating evidence that the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine does not provide protection as long lasting as had been previously
`
`represented, does not prevent infection or transmission, but only allegedly reduces the
`
`severity of Covid-19 if a person contracts Covid-19.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`79. While many claimed that the Covid-19 pandemic was a pandemic of the
`
`unvaccinated, now the overwhelming majority of people with Covid-19 were vaccinated
`
`to one extent or another.
`
`80.
`
`The numbers of patients hospitalized because of Covid-19 positive status
`
`has also been overstated because many were hospitalized for other causes, not because of
`
`Covid-19.
`
`81.
`
`Thus, the extent of Covid-19 infections, the severity of the Covid-19
`
`infection, the efficacy of the vaccines, and the time-length of vaccine protection may all
`
`have been overstated, contributing to an over exuberance in mandating vaccines, and
`
`punishing the unvaccinated, as Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation have
`
`done as set forth above.
`
`82.
`
`Early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, and before any vaccines were
`
`available, Defendant Mayo provided free testing to determine “how many Mayo Clinic
`
`staff have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2.”
`
`83. Rather than disclosing the results of its determination on the numbers of
`
`Defendant Mayo “staff” that “have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2,” or
`
`disclosing studies on the “duration of immunity after Covid-19,” (which some studies
`
`have asserted are many times more effective than vaccine immunity), Defendant Mayo
`
`has not made public this information and instead simply issued its Vaccine Mandate.
`
`84. On March 8, 2022, Defendant Mayo announced it would suspend the
`
`testing program portion of its Vaccine Mandate. As a result, Defendant Mayo’s
`
`remaining unvaccinated employees are now treated similarly to vaccinated employees.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 19 of 28
`
`
`
`85. After terminating each of the Plaintiffs, Defendant Mayo and Defendant
`
`Mayo Foundation suspended weekly testing effective March 14, 2022. This means that
`
`those employees (like Plaintiffs) who would have had their religious exemptions granted,
`
`contingent on weekly testing, and were terminated between January 2022 and March 8,
`
`2022, would no longer be forced to test weekly, and would no longer be terminated for
`
`objecting to testing, which Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation has now
`
`determined is unnecessary.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Religious Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under Title VII of the Civil
`Rights Act of 1964
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully set-forth
`
`herein.
`
`87. Defendant Mayo is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e(b).
`
`88. Defendant Mayo Foundation is an “employer” within the meaning of 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiffs are “employees” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs which prevented them from
`
`receiving the vaccine. Plaintiffs’ beliefs arise because of their sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs.
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiffs informed Defendant Mayo and/or Defendant Mayo Foundation of
`
`the conflict between their religious beliefs and the Vaccine Mandate.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`CASE 0:22-cv-01478-ECT-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 06/01/22 Page 20 of 28
`
`
`
`92.
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of
`
`religion. Id. § 2000e-2. The Act further requires covered employers to provide reasonable
`
`accommodation to their employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Id. § 2000e(j).
`
`93.
`
`The law prohibits Defendant Mayo and Defendant Mayo Foundation from
`
`scrutinizing what they believe to be the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, or
`
`whether Plaintiffs’ exercise of their beliefs is logical or as consistent as Defendant Mayo
`
`and Defendant Mayo Foundation believe the exercise of those religious beliefs should be.
`
`94. Guidance issued by the Equ

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket